MASKED OWL. 
stand the extent of this country and does not take into consideration the 
topography of the land. 
Tyto novoeJiollandice, Tcimherli Mathews. Rothschild and Hartert remark : 
“ There was no justification for the separation of this supposed kimberli 
in January 1912. The type is not smaller than males of what the author 
called novcehollandice from other localities at that time, and the somewhat 
pale colour loses all significance if only one glance is cast on a pair from 
the South Alligator River in the Tring Museum, which differ from each 
other much more than the type of kimberli does from other specimens. 
T. n. kimberli must therefore be united with whitei and per'plexay 
I was justified in separating this form, as Mr. H. L. White wrote me: 
“ Mr. G. E. Hill shot several specimens all similar to this one,” when he 
forwarded me another example. Moreover, the two specimens mentioned 
by Rothschild and Hartert are in immature (?) (female) and adult (male) 
plumage, the latter agreeing well with the type of kimberli : the former is 
different, inasmuch as it shows the plumage of the first or second year. My 
critics do not appear to have realised the fact that this bird is only dimorphic 
to a certain extent : they did not help me when I inquired as to whether two 
species were confused. I know now how the two forms are inter-related, and 
by this knowledge I can better interpret the one species admitted. 
The form kimberli is distinct, and their valuation of it as unjustified 
proves that even the most excellent judges of subspecific characters, as 
regards Palsearctic forms, can err when dealing with an unknown fauna. 
The most remarkable point in this criticism is the failure of Rothschild and 
Hartert to take into consideration the lessons taught them by their Palsearctic 
studies. 
Tyto novmhollandice mackayi Mathews. My critics write : “ The diagnosis 
is not elucidating, as the supposed differences of T. n. novcehollandim alone 
are given, which Mr. Mathews does not characterize, and of which, since 
he now separates the South Australian and Victorian forms, there is no skin 
in his collection, as it must be restricted to New South Wales, according to 
his most recent views. All Queensland, North-west Australian and West 
Australian skins before us have similar white facial discs ! In fact, 
mackayi is perfectly similar to kimberli and whitei.^'’ 
The above criticism is peculiar, as it is not customary to characterize the 
typical form when describing a subspecies ; it is, further, of no account 
whether I have New South Wales skins in my collection or not, as I 
am not describing my collection but dealing with the birds of Australia, 
and lots of material is available to me at different times which unfortunately 
I cannot retain in my collection. I did not restrict the species to New South 
387 
